Comentários bíblicos

CHAPTER 14

Mark 14:2. δέ] B C* D L א, vss. have γάρ. So Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta is from Matthew 26:5.

Mark 14:3. καί before συντρ. is, with Tisch., following B L א, Copt., to be deleted. A connective addition.

τὸ ἀλάβ.] Fritzsche, Lachm. read τὸν ἀλάβ., which is attested by A D E F H K S U V X Γ, min. Tisch., following B C L Δ א**, has τὴν ἀλάβ., and this is to be preferred. The ignorance of the transcribers brought in τό and τόν.

κατά] is wanting in B C L Δ א, min. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A supplement, instead of which D has ἐπί.

Mark 14:4. καὶ λέγοντες] is with Tisch., in accordance with B C* L א, Copt., to be deleted. It is a gloss after Matthew, instead of which D reads καὶ ἔλεγον.

Mark 14:5. τὸ μύρον] is wanting in Elz., but is decisively attested. The omission is explained from Matthew 26:9 (where τοῦτο alone is genuine). The preponderance of evidence forbids the supposition that it is an interpolation from John 12:5. D, min. have it before τοῦτο, and in א τοῦτο is wanting.

Mark 14:6. Instead of ἐν ἐμοί Elz. has εἰς ἐμέ, in opposition to decisive evidence. It is from Matthew.

Mark 14:8. αὓτη] is only wanting, indeed, in B L א, min. Copt. Syr. utr. (bracketed by Lachm.), but is rightly deleted by Tisch. It is an addition, which is not found till after ἐποίησεν in Δ. Comp. Matthew 26:12.

Mark 14:9. After ἀμήν very considerable evidence supports δέ, which Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. has adopted. It is to be adopted; the omission occurred conformably to the usual expression of Mark, in accordance with Matthew 26:13.

τοῦτο] is wanting in B D L א, min. Cant. Verc. Vind. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. It is from Matthew 26:13.

Mark 14:14. After κατάλυμα Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. (in brackets) Tisch. read μου, following B C D L Δ א, min. Sax. Vulg. It. (not all the codices). As μου has this strong attestation and yet is superfluous, and as it does not occur at Luke 22:11, it is to be held as genuine.

Mark 14:15. The form ἀνάγαιον (Elz.: ἀνώγεον) is decisively attested.

Before ἐκεῖ is to be read with Tisch. καί, in accordance with B C D L א, 346, vss. It dropped out in accordance with Luke 22:12.

Mark 14:19. καὶ ἄλλως· μήτι ἐγώ] is wanting in B C L P Δ א, min. vss., including Syr., utr. Vulg. After the example of earlier editors, suspected by Griesb., rejected by Schulz, struck out by Fritzsche and Tisch. But the omission might just as easily have been brought about by means of the preceding μήτι ἐγώ as by reason of the startling and even offensive superfluousness of the words, which, moreover, are not found in Matthew, whereas no reason for their being added can at all be conceived of without arbitrary hypotheses.

After λάβετε, Mark 14:22, Elz. has φἀγετε, in opposition to decisive evidence. From Matthew.

Mark 14:23. The article before ποτήριον (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) has in this place even stronger evidence against it than in Matthew 26:27, and is, as there, to be struck out.

Mark 14:24. τὸ τῆς] This τό is, as in Matthew 26:28, to be deleted on considerable evidence with Tisch. (Lachm. has bracketed it).

καινῆς] is wanting in B C D L א, Copt. Cant. Deleted by Tisch., and rightly, as also at Matthew 26:28.

περί] B C D L Δ א, min.: ὑπέρ. So Lachm. and Tisch. Περί is from Matthew, from whom also codd. and vss. have added εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτ.

Mark 14:27. ἐν ἐμοὶ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ] So Elz. and the editors, except Fritzsche and Tisch., read after σκανδαλ. Yet Mill and Griesb. condemned the words. They are decisively to be rejected as an addition from Matthew 26:31, as they are wholly wanting in preponderant witnesses, while others merely omit ἐν ἐμοί, and others still ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ. Lachm. has the latter in brackets.

διασκορπισθήσεται is an emendation (comp. on Matthew 26:31), instead of which, with Lachm. and Tisch., διασκορπισθήσονται is to be read, and that with Tisch., after πρόβατα (B C D L א, min.).

Mark 14:29. καὶ εἰ] Fritzsche, Tisch. read εἰ καί. Either is appropriate, and with the evidence divided no decision can be arrived at, even if εἰ καί was introduced in Matthew.

Mark 14:30. σύ after ὁτι is wanting in Elz., in opposition to decisive evidence.

ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ταύτῃ] B C D L א, min. Lachm. Tisch. have ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί. Rightly; if this order of words were from Matthew 26:34, the ἐν also would not be left out in it.

In what follows τρίς με ἀπ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be written. The received order is from Matthew.

Mark 14:31. ἐκ περισσοῦ] B C D א, min. have ἐκπερισσῶς. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the unusual word was partly exchanged for the simple περισσῶς (L, min.), partly glossed by ἐκ περισσοῦ.

ἔλεγε] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐλάλει, following B D L א. The Recepta is a correction. Comp. on Mark 11:23.

μᾶλλον] is wanting in B C D L א, vss., including Vulg., It. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A gloss on ἐκ περισσοῦ; hence min. have it also before these words (comp. Mark 7:36), and this course Fritzsche has followed.

Mark 14:35. As at Matthew 26:39, so here also προσελθών is strongly attested, but it is to be rejected.

Mark 14:36. τὸ ποτήρ. ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ τοῦτο] D, Hil.: τοῦτο τ. π. ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ; K M: ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ τ. π. τ.; A B C G L U X Δ א, min. Or. vss., including Vulg.: τ. π. τοῦτο ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ. In this variety of readings the last is so preponderantly attested that it is, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., to be adopted.

Mark 14:40. ὑποστρέψας] Lachm. has πάλιν ἐλθών, following B L א, Copt. Pers. w. Ar. p. (D and cod. It. have merely ἐλθών). πάλιν ἐλθών is the more to be preferred, seeing that Mark is fond of the word πάλιν, and that he nowhere has the word ὑποστρέφω. But transcribers referred and joined the πάλιν to εὗρ. αὐτοὺς καθεύδ., in accordance with which ἐλθών then became glossed and supplanted by ὑποστρέψ. Accordingly the subsequent πάλιν, which by Elz. Scholz, Tisch. is read after αὐτούς, and is not found in B D L א, min. vss., is, with Lachm., to be deleted.

Instead of καταβαρυνόμενοι, Elz. Scholz have βεβαρημένοι, in opposition to preponderant evidence. It is from Matthew.

Mark 14:41. Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have τὸ λοιπόν. But the article has come in from Matthew, in opposition to considerable evidence.

Mark 14:43. After Ἰούδας Fritzsche has Ἰσκαριώτης, Lachm. and Tisch. ὁ Ἰσκαρ.; and this addition, sometimes with, sometimes without the article, is found in witnesses of weight (but not in B א). Rightly; the omission is explained from the parallels.

ὤν] after εἷς has against it such decisive evidence that it cannot be maintained by means of the parallels, nor even by Mark 14:10. It is to be deleted, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.

πολύς] is wanting in B L א, min. vss. Condemned by Rinck, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. From Matthew.

Mark 14:45. Lachm. only reads ῥαββί once, following B C* D L M Δ א, min. vss., including Vulg., codd. It. But this reading is from Matthew 26:49, whence also χαῖρε has intruded into codd. and vss.

Mark 14:46. ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τ. χεῖρας αὐτῶν] Many various readings, of which Lachm. has τ. χεῖρας ἐπʼ αὐτ.; Tisch.: τ. χεῖρας αὐτῷ. The latter is attested by B D L א** min. vss., and is to be preferred as the less usual (see on Acts 12:1, the exegetical remarks), which was altered in accordance with Matthew 26:50.

Mark 14:47. τις] has, it is true, important evidence against it; but, as being superfluous, and, moreover, as not occurring in Matthew 26:51, it might have been so easily passed over, that it may not be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch.

Instead of ὠτίον read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B D א, 1, ὠτάριον. The former is from Matthew.

Mark 14:48. The form ἐξήλθατε (Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested.

Mark 14:51. εἷς τις νεανίσκ.] Lachm. Tisch. read νεανίσκ. τις, following B C L א, Copt. Syr. It. Vulg. (D: νεανίσκ. δέ τις, without καί). The Recepta is to be maintained; νεανίσλος τις is the most prevalent mode of expression.

Instead of ἠκολούθει, read, in accordance with B C L א, συνηκολούθει (so Lachm. and Tisch.). The current simple form has crept in also at 37.

οἱ νεανίσκοι] is wanting in B C* D L Δ א, Syr. Arr. Pers. Copt. It. Vulg. Theophylact, Rightly condemned by Griesb. (but see his Comm. crit. p. 179) and Rinck, deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. It came in by means of the gloss τὸν νεανίσκον, which was written in the margin beside αὐτόν, as Slav, still renders τὸν νεανίσκον instead of αὐτὸν οἱ νεανίσκοι. The τὸν νεανίσκον written in the margin was easily changed into οἱ νεανίσκοι, since the absence of a fitting subject for κρατοῦσιν might be felt.

Mark 14:52. ἀπʼ αὐτῶν] bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch., has considerable testimony against it; yet, as being quite superfluous, it was more easily passed over than added.

Mark 14:53. αὐτῷ after συνέρχ. is wanting in D L Δ א, Vulg. It. Or. Deleted by Tisch. An omission from misunderstanding.

Mark 14:65. ἔβαλλον] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἔλαβον on decisive evidence. ἔλαβον not being understood, was variously altered.

Mark 14:67. Ἰησοῦ ἦσθα] B C L א have ἦσθε τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. So Lachm. and Tisch. D Δ, min. vss., including Vulg. and codd. It., have τοῦ Ἰησ. before τοῦ Ναζ. The latter is in accordance with the usual mode of expression, and with Matthew 26:69. ἦσθα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ is to be adopted; this τοῦ Ἰησοῦ following was omitted (so still in min., Fritzsche), and was then variously restored.

Mark 14:68. οὐκ … οὐδέ] Lachm. has οὔτε … οὔτε, following B D L א, Eus. So now Tisch. also; and rightly. See Matthew.

τί σὺ λέγεις] Lachm. and Tisch. have σὺ τί λέγεις, following B C L Δ א, min. Rightly; σὺ was omitted (so still in D, Vulg. It.), and then was restored at the place that first presented itself after τί.

καὶ ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησε] is wanting, indeed, in B L א, Copt. Colb. (bracketed by Lachm.); but the omission is manifestly caused by comparison with Matthew.

Mark 14:70. καὶ ἡ λαλία σου ὁμοιάζει] So Elz. Scholz, Fritzsche, after Γαλιλ. εἶ. But the words are wanting in B C D L א, min. Copt. Sahid. Vulg. codd. It. Eus. Aug. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation from Matthew 26:73, in accordance with the very old reading in that place (D, codd. It.), ὁμοιάζει. If the words were genuine, they would hardly have been passed over, containing, as they do, so familiar and noteworthy a particular of the history; the appeal to the homoeoteleuton is not sufficient.

Mark 14:71. Instead of ὀμνύειν (comp. Matthew), ὀμνύναι is sufficiently vouched for by B E H L S U V X Γ, min.

Mark 14:72. εὐθέως after καί is wanting in Elz., but it is attested by B D G L א (which, with L, has not ἐκ δευτ.), min. Syr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. codd. It. Eus., and adopted by Griesb. Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Nevertheless it was far easier for it to be introduced from Matthew 26:74 than for it, with its prevalent use and appropriateness, to be omitted. Hence, on the important evidence for its omission (including A C), it is, with Tisch., to be struck out.

Instead of τὸ ῥῆμα ὅ, the Recepta has τοῦ ῥήματος οὗ, in opposition to decisive witnesses, among which, however, A B C L Δ א, min. Copt. Sahid. read τὸ ῥῆμα ὡς. Lachm. and Tisch. have the latter; and with this preponderant attestation, it is to be regarded as original (followed also by Luke 22:61).

Mark 14:1-2. See on Matthew 26:2-5. Comp. Luke 22:1-2. Including this short introduction of simple historical tenor (in which Luke follows him), Mark is, in the entire narrative of the passion, generally more original, fresh, and free from later additions and amplifications of tradition than Matthew (comp. Weiss, 1861, p. 52 ff.), although the latter again is the more original in various details.

τὸ πάσχα κ. τὰ ἄζυμα] the Passover and the unleavened (חמצות), i.e. the feast of the Passover and (which it likewise is) of the unleavened. Comp. 3 Esdr. Mark 1:19 : ἠγάγοσαν … τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὴν ἑορτὴν τῶν ἀζύμων. On τὰ ἄζυμα as a designation of the feast, comp. 3 Esdr. Mark 1:10 : ἔχοντες τὰ ἄζυμα κατὰ τὰς φυλάς.

ἔλεγον γάρ] This γάρ (see the critical remarks) informs us of the reason of the ἐζήτουν πῶς previously said; for the feast was in their way, so that they could not at once proceed, but believed that they must let it first go quietly by, so that no tumult might occur. Victor Antiochenus remarks: τὴν μὲν ἑορτὴν ὑπερθέσθαι βούλονται· οὐ συγχωροῦντο δὲ, ἐπειδὴ τὴν προφητείαν ἔδει πληροῦσθαι τὴν ἐν τῇ νομικῇ διατυπώσει, ἐν ᾗ τὸ πάσχα ἐδύετο, μηνὶ πρώτῳ τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ· ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ τῷ μηνὶ καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τὸ ἀληθινὸν πάσχα ἔδει θυτῆναι. A view right in itself; not, however, according to the Synoptic, but according to the Johannine account of the day of the death of Jesus.

ἔσται] shall be, certainty of what was otherwise to be expected. Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 140.

Mark 14:3-9.[160] See on Matthew 26:6-13. Comp. John 12:1-8, who also has the peculiar expression πιστικῆς, either directly from Mark, or from the form of tradition from which Mark also adopted it. Luke has at Mark 7:36 ff. a history of an anointing, but a different one.

μύρου νάρδου] On the costliness of this, see Pliny, H. N. xiii. 2.

πιστικῆς] See on this word, Fritzsche in loc. and in the Hall. Lit. Z. 1840, p. 179 ff.; Lücke on John 12:3; Winer, p. 89 [E. T. 121]; Wichelhaus, Leidensgesch. p. 74 f.; Stephani Thes., ed. Hase, VI. p. 1117. πιστικός, in demonstrable usage, means nothing else than (1) convincing, persuading (Xen. Cyrop. i. 6. 10 : πιστικωτέρους … λόγους, Plato, Gorg. p. 455 A: ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐστι … πιστικὸς μόνον), thus being equivalent to πειστικός; (2) faithful, trustworthy (Artemidorus, Oneir. ii. 32, p. 121: γυνὴ πιστικὴ καὶ οἰκουρός, comp. πιστικῶς, Plut. Pel. 8; Scymn. orb. descr. 42), thus equivalent to πιστός. The latter signification is here to be maintained: nard, on which one can rely, i.e. unadulterated genuine nard, as Eusebius, Demonstr. ev. 9, calls the gospel the εὐφροσύνη τοῦ πιστικοῦ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης κράματος (where the contextual reference to the drinking lies not in πιστικοῦ, but in κράματος). The opposite is “pseudonardus” (Plin. H. N. xii. 12. 26), with which the genuine nard was often adulterated (comp. also Dioscor. mat. med. i. 6 f.). This is the explanation already given by Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus (both of whom, however, add that a special kind of nard may also be intended), and most of the older and more recent commentators (Lücke is not decided). But Eritzsche (following Casaubon, Beza, Erasmus Schmid, Maldonatus, and others of the older expositors quoted by Wolf, who deduce it from πίνω) derives it from πιπίσκω, and explains it as nardus potabilis. Certainly anointing oils, and especially oil of spikenard, were drunk mingled with wine (Athen. xv. p. 689; Lucian, Nigrin. 31; Juvenal, Sat. vi. 303; Hirtius, de bell. Hisp. 33. 5; Plin. H. N. xiv. 19. 5; and see in general, Hermann, Privatalterth. § 26. 8, 9); but the actual usus loquendi stands decidedly opposed to this view, for according to it πιστός doubtless (Aesch. Prom. 478; Lobeck, Technol. p. 131) has the signification of drinkable, but not πιστικός, even apart from the facts that the context does not point to this quality, and that it is asserted not of the ointment, but of the nard (the plant). The usus loquendi, moreover, is decisive against all other explanations, such as that of the Vulgate (comp. Castalio, Hammond, Grotius, Wetstein, Rosenmüller): spicati;[161] and that of Scaliger: pounded nard (equivalent to πιστκῆς), from πτίσσω, although this etymology in itself would be possible (Lobeck, Paralip. p. 31). Others have derived πιστικῆς from the proper name of some unknown place (Pistic nard), as did Augustine; but this was a cutting of the knot.[162]

πολυτελοῦς] belongs to ΜΎΡΟΥ, not to ΝΆΡΔΟΥ, which has its epithet already, and see Mark 14:5. Comp. Matthew 26:7.

ΣΥΝΤΡΊΨΑΣΑ] neither: she rubbed it and poured, etc. (Kypke), nor: she shook the vessel (Knatchbull, Hammond, Wakefield, Silv. crit. V. p. 57), but: she broke it (Sir 21:14; Bar 6:17; Dem. 845, 18; Xen., et al.), namely, the narrow (Plin. H. N. ix. 35) neck of the vessel, for she had destined the entire contents for Jesus, nothing to be reserved.

τὴν ἀλάβ.] ἈΛΆΒΑΣΤΡΟς occurs in all the three genders, and the codices vary accordingly. See the critical remarks.

ΑὐΤΟῦ Τῆς ΚΕΦΑΛῆς] (see the critical remarks) on him upon the head, without the preposition usual in other cases (Plato, Rep. iii. p. 397 E), κατά before Τῆς ΚΕΦΑΛῆς (Plato, Leg. vii. p. 814 D; Herod, iv. 62).

Mark 14:4. But there were some, who grumbled to one another (uttered grumblings to one another). πρὸς ἐαυτ., as at Mark 11:31, Mark 10:26, al. What they murmured, is contained in what follows, without καὶ λέγοντες. Comp. the use of ΘΑΥΜΆΖΕΙΝ, mirabundum quaerere, in Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 511 f.

Mark 14:5. ἐνεβριμ. αὐτῇ] they were angry at her. Comp. Mark 1:43.

Mark 14:7. καὶ ὅταν θέλητε κ.τ.λ.] certainly an amplifying addition of tradition, found neither in Matthew nor in John.

Mark 14:8. What she was able (to do) she has done; the greatest work of love which was possible to her, she has done. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 30: διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ἔχειν, ὅ τι ποιῇς.

ΠΡΟΈΛΑΒΕ Κ.Τ.Λ.] Beforehand she hath anointed my body on behalf of embalming (in order thereby to embalm it). A classical writer would have said προλαβοῦσα ἐμίρισε (Xen. Cyr. i. 2.3; Thuc. iii. 3; Dem. 44, 3, al.). Passages with the infinitive from Josephus may be seen in Kypke, I. 192. We may add that the expression in Mark already betrays the explanatory tradition.

Mark 14:9. εἰς ὅλον τ. κόσμον] as in Mark 1:39. The relation to ὍΠΟΥ is as at Matthew 26:13.

[160] Holtzmann, p. 95, attributes to this episode the significant purpose of introducing the attitude of the betrayer, whose psychological crisis had now set in, in making advances to meet the Sanhedrim. But this could only be the case, if Mark and Matthew had named Judas as the murmurer. Now Mark has τινές in general, and Matthew designates οἱ μαθηταί as the murmurers. John is the first to name Judas.

[161] Mark having retained the Latin word, but having given to it another form. See also Estius, Annot. p. 892.—Several codd. of the It., too, have the translation spicati; others: pistici, Verc.: optimi.

[162] Still the possibility of its being the adjective of a local name may not be called in question. In fact, the Scholiast, Aesch. Pers. 1, expressly says: τάδε μὲν Περσῶν πιστὰ καλεῖται … πόλις ἐστι Περσῶν Πίστενρα καλουμένη, ἥν συγκόψας ὁ ποιητὴς Πίστα ἔφη. Lobeck, Pathol. p. 282, remarks on this: “Somnium hoc est, sed nititur observatione licentiae popularis, qua nomina peregrina varie et multipliciter interpolantur.” On the taking of it as a local designation depends the translation pistici, which the Vulgate also, along with codd. of It., has in John 12:3, although in the present passage it gives spicati.

Mark 14:10-11. See on Matthew 26:14-16. Comp. Luke 22:3-6.

εἶς τῶν δώδεκα] has a tragic stress.

Mark 14:12-16. See on Matthew 26:17-19. Comp. Luke 22:7-13. The marvellous character of the ordering of the repast, which is not as yet found in Matthew with his simple πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα, points in Mark and Luke to a later form of the tradition (in opposition to Ewald, Weiss, Holtzmann, and others), as Bleek also assumes. Comp. Matthew 26:18. This form may easily, under the influence of the conception of our Lord’s prophetic character (comp. Mark 11:2 f.), have originated through the circumstance, that the two disciples met the servant of the δεῖνα, to whom Jesus sent them, in the street with a pitcher of water. Assuredly original, however, is the sending of only two disciples in Mark, whom thereupon Luke 22:8 names.

ὅτε τ. πάσχα ἔθυον] on which day they killed the paschal lamb (Exodus 12:21; Deuteronomy 16:2; Deuteronomy 3 Esdr. Mark 1:1, Mark 7:12), which occurred on the 14th Nisan in the afternoon.[163] See on Matthew 26:17.

Mark 14:13. ἄνθρωπος] The connection (see Mark 14:14) shows that the man in question was a slave; his occupation was the carrying of water, Deuteronomy 29:10; Joshua 9:21; Wetstein in loc.

κεράμιον ὕδατος] an earthen vessel with water. Comp. ἀλάβαστρον μύρου, Mark 14:3. “The water pitcher reminds one of the beginning of a meal, for which the hands are washed,” Ewald.

Mark 14:14. τὸ κατάλυμά μου] the lodging destined for me, in which (ὅπου) I, etc. The word ΚΑΤΆΛ., lodging, quarters, is bad Greek, Thom. M. p. 501. But see Pollux, i. 73, and Eustathius, ad Od. iv. 146, 33, Rom.

Mark 14:15. αὐτός] He himself, the master of the house. On the form ἀνάγαιον instead of ἈΝΏΓΑΙΟΝ (Xen. Anab. v. 4. 29), which is preserved in the old lexicographers, see Fritzsche in loc.; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 12 [E. T. 13]. In signification it is equivalent to ὑπερῷον, עֲלִיָה, upper chamber, used as a place of prayer and of assembling together. Comp. on Mark 2:3, and see on Acts 1:13.

The attributes which follow are thus to be distributed: he will show you a large upper chamber spread, i.e. laid with carpets, in readiness.

ἐτοιμάσ. ἡμῖν] arrange for us, make preparation for us. Comp. Luke 9:52.

[163] Neither here nor elsewhere have the Synoptics expressed themselves ambiguously as to the day of the Last Supper. See Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 96 ff. (in opposition to Aberle in the theol. Quartalschr. IV. p. 548 ff.).

Mark 14:17-25. See on Matthew 26:20-29. Comp. Luke 22:14-23.

μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα] Those two are to be conceived as having returned after the preparation.

Mark 14:18 f. ὁ ἐσθίων μετʼ ἐμοῦ] not said for the purpose of making known the fact, but the expression of deeply painful emotion.

εἷς καθεῖς] man by man. See on this expression of late Greek, wherein the preposition is adverbial, Wetstein in loc.; Winer, p. 223 [E. T. 312]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 27 [E. T. 30].

καὶ ἄλλος] an inaccuracy of expression, as though there had been previously said not εἷς καθεῖς, but merely εἷς. Mark in particular might be led into this inaccuracy by his graphic manner.

Mark 14:20. ὁ ἐμβαπτ.] not at this moment, and so not a definite designation of the traitor (as Bleek will have it), for after Mark 14:19 it is certain that the eating was not immediately proceeded with (comp. on Matthew 26:23); but neither is it generally: “qui mecum vesci consuevit,” Beza; but, like ὁ ἐσθίων μετʼ ἐμοῦ, Mark 14:18, referring generally to this meal, and withal more precisely indicating the traitor to this extent, that he was one of those who reclined nearest to Jesus, and who ate with Him out of the same dish. According to Lange, indeed, the hand of Judas made a “movement playing the hypocrite,” and met the hand of the Lord, while the latter was still in the dish, in order with apparent ingenuousness to receive the morsel. A harmonistic play of fancy, whereof nothing appears in the text.

Mark 14:24. εἶπεν] namely, while they drank, not before the drinking. A deviation from Matthew and Luke, but not inappropriate, as Jesus gives the explanation not afterwards (in opposition to de Wette), but at the time of the drinking[164] (ἐστί). A very immaterial difference, to be explained not from Mark’s mere love for alteration (de Wette), but from a diversity of the tradition, in respect to which, however, the greater simplicity and independence on the form of the ecclesiastical observance, which mark the narrative in Mark, tell in favour of its originality (in opposition to Baur).

ΤῸ ΑἿΜΆ ΜΟΥ Τῆς ΔΙΑΘΉΚΗς] my covenant-blood, as Matthew 26:28. The definition, “the new covenant,” came in later; as also “for the forgiveness of sins” is a more precise specification from a further stage of development.[165] Comp. on Matthew 26:28. And the direction, “Do this in remembrance of me,” is first added in Paul (twice over) and in Luke. See on 1 Corinthians 11:24.

[164] Comp. also Rückert, Abendm. p. 72.

[165] But observe how the idea of reconciliation is already in the case of Mark implied in the simple ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. Even Baur (neut. Theol. p. 102) acknowledges this, but thinks that these very words contain a later modification of the narrative.

Mark 14:26-31. See on Matthew 26:30-35.

Mark 14:29. καί εἰ] even if. On the difference between this and εἰ καί (which here occurs as a various reading), see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519 f.

ἀλλʼ] in the apodosis of a connecting sentence, at certe; see Heindorf, ad Plat. Soph. p. 341 f.; Klotz, p. 93.

Mark 14:30. σύ] has the emphasis of the contrast with ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐγώ.

σήμερον ταύτῃ νυκτί] (see the critical remarks) impassioned climax: to-day, in this night. As to πρὶν ἤ, see on Matthew 1:18.

δίς] a later form assumed by the utterance than in Matthew. Comp. Mark 14:68; Mark 14:72. Even John 13:38 has it not. There was no occasion for a later simplification (Weiss), if the characteristic δίς was there from the first.

Mark 14:31. ἐκπερισσῶς ἐλάλει] (see the critical remarks): but he was speaking exceedingly much. Observe the difference between this ἐλάλει and the subsequent ἔλεγον (comp. on Mark 1:34 he latter is the simple, definite saying; the former, with ἐκπερισσῶς, is in keeping with the passionate nature of Peter not even yet silenced by Mark 14:30. The word ἐκπερισσ. is not preserved elsewhere.

ἀπαρνήσομαι] οὐ μή, with the future (see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 410 ff.), denotes the right sure expectation. Comp. on Matthew 26:35.

Mark 14:32-42. Comp. on Matthew 26:36-46. Comp. Luke 22:40-46.

Mark 14:33. ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι] used in this place of the anguish (otherwise at Mark 9:15). The word occurs in the N. T. only in Mark, who uses strongly graphic language. Comp. Mark 16:5-6. Matthew, with more psychological suitableness, has λυπεῖσθαι.

ἕως θανάτου] See on Matthew 26:38, and comp. Sir 37:2; Clem. 1 Corinthians 4 : ζῆλος ἐποίησεν Ἰωσὴφ μέχρι θανάτου διωχθῆναι, Test. XII. Patr. p. 520.

παρέλθῃ ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ] Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 527: ηὔξατο … ἵνα παρέλθῃ ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ ἡ ὀργὴ κυρίου.

ἡ ὥρα] the hour κατʼ ἐξοχήν, hora fatalis. It passes over from the man, when the latter is spared from undergoing its destiny.

Mark 14:36. Ἀββᾶ] אֵבָּא; so spoke Jesus in prayer to His Father. This mode of address assumed among the Greek-speaking Christians the nature of a proper name, and the fervour of the feeling of childship added, moreover, the appellative address ὁ πατήρ,—a juxtaposition, which gradually became so hallowed by usage that here Mark even places it in the very mouth of Jesus, which is an involuntary Hysteron proteron. The usual view, that ὁ πατήρ is an addition by way of interpreting, is quite out of place in the fervent address of prayer. See on Romans 8:15. Against the objections of Fritzsche, see on Galatians 4:6.

παρένεγκε] carry away past. Hahn was wrong, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 209 f, in deducing from the passage (and from Luke 22:24) that Jesus had been tempted by His σάρξ. Every temptation came to Him from without. But in this place He gives utterance only to His purely human feeling, and that with unconditional subordination to God, whereby there is exhibited even in that very feeling His μὴ γνῶναι ἁμαρτίαν, which is incompatible with incitements to sin from His own σάρξ.

ἀλλʼ οὐ] The following interrogative τί shows how the utterance emotionally broken off is here to be completed. Hence somewhat in this way: but there comes not into question, not: ἀλλʼ οὐ γενέσθω.

Mark 14:41. καθεύδετε λοιπὸν κ.τ.λ.] as at Matthew 26:45, painful irony: sleep on now, and take your rest! Hardly has Jesus thus spoken when He sees Judas approach with his band (Mark 14:42-43). Then His mood of painful irony breaks off, and with urgent earnestness He now goes on in hasty, unconnected exclamations: there is enough (of sleep)! the hour is come! see, the Son of man is delivered into the hands of sinners! arise, let us go (to meet this decisive crisis)! see, my betrayer is at hand! It is only this view of ἀπέχει, according to which it refers to the sleep of the disciples, that corresponds to the immediate connection with what goes before (καθεύδετε κ.τ.λ.) and follows; and how natural is the change of mood, occasioned by the approaching betrayers! All the more original is the representation. Comp. Erasmus, Bengel (“suas jam peractas habet sopor vices; nunc alia res est”), Kuinoel, Ewald, Bleek. Hence it is not: there is enough of watching (Hammond, Fritzsche). The usus loquendi of ἀπέχει, sufficit (Vulgate), depends on the passages, which certainly are only few and late, but certain, (pseudo-) Anacreon, xxviii. 33; Cyrill. in Hagg. ii. 9, even although the gloss of Hesychius: ἀπέχει, ἀπόχρη, ἐξαρκεῖ, is critically very uncertain.[166] Others interpret at variance with linguistic usage: abest, sc. anxictas mea (see Heumann, Thiess), or the betrayer (Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 103 f.); ἀπέχειν, in fact, does not mean the being removed in itself, but denotes the distance (Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 5; Polyb. i. 19. 5; 2Ma 11:5; 2Ma 12:29). Lange also is linguistically wrong in rendering: “it is all over with it,” it will do no longer. The comparison of οὐδὲν ἀπέχει, nothing stands in the way,—in which, in fact, ἀπέχει, is not intransitive, but active,—is altogether irrelevant.

[166] See Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 506. He would leave ἀπέχει without any idea to complete it, and that in the sense: it is accomplished, it is the time of fulfilment, the end is come, just as Grotius, ad Matthew 26:45 (peractum est), and as the codex Brixiensis has, adest finis, while D and min. add to ἀπέχει: τὸ τέλος. The view deserves consideration. Still the usual it is enough is more in keeping with the empirical use, as it is preserved in the two passages of Anacreon and Cyril; moreover, it gives rise to a doubt in the matter, that Jesus should have spoken a word equivalent to the τετέλεσται of John 19:30 even now, when the consummation was only just beginning.